Annals of Arid Zone 62(3): 253-260, 2023

Evaluation of Sesame Genotypes for Field

Resistance Against Antigastra catalaunalis,
Macrophomina phaseolina and Phyllody
Shalini Pandey*, Neelam Geat, Rekha Kumawat, M.M. Sundria
and S.R. Kumhar
Agricultural Research Station, Mandor, Agriculture University,
Jodhpur 342304, India
Received: April 2023

Abstract: One hundred three genotypes of sesame (Sesamum

indicum L.) representing varied geographic and genetic
diversity were tested against major insect pests and diseases.
None of the evaluated genotypes were found to be free from
infestation by leaf webber and capsule borer, (Antigastra
catalaunalis). The average plant, flower and capsule damage
varied from zero to 50%, 6.85% to 57.14% and 4.23% to
88.89%, respectively. Three genotypes viz., S-0292, IC-131943
and S-0301 were found moderately resistant to A. catalaunalis
at all the three stages (vegetative, flower and capsule stages).
Among the 103 genotypes evaluated for Macrophomina stem
& root rot and phyllody disease, 11 genotypes namely S-0644,
KMR-53, IS-1672, NIC-16256, IS-245, TC-30, IC-131943,
EC-334974, NIC-7935, GRT-8245, and NIC-8439-B showed
excellent performance with less disease incidence.
OPEN ACCESS Key words: Sesamum indicum, Antigastra catalaunalis, Macrophomina stem
and root rot, Phyllody.
Edited by
Praveen Kumar
Sesame, Sesamum indicum L. is one of the oilseed crops
Vipin Chaudhary widely grown in Asia for its high quality nutritional seeds.
K.S. Jadon During 2020-21, area under sesame was 1.625 Mha with a total
S.C. Meena production of 0.812 Mt and an average productivity of 500
R.K. Solanki kg ha-1. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and West
Bengal together contributed 78% of the total sesame area in the
*Correspondence country (Anonymous, 2021). The yield potential of this crop
Shalini Pandey has not been fully realized due to biotic factors (Egonyu et al.,
pandeyshalini80@gmail.com 2005; Guzmán et al., 2022). The crop is host of 29 species of
insect pests (Rai, 1976), of which the sesame leaf webber and
Citation capsule borer Antigastra catalaunalis are the major one which
can damage the crop at different stages of plant growth. It
Pandey, S., Geat, N., Kumawat, R.,
Sundaria, M.M. and Kumhar, S.R. causes yield losses in the range of 10-90% in different agro-
2023. Evaluation of sesame genotypes climatic regions of India (Ahuja and Bakhetia,1995; Saxena and
for field resistance against Antigastra Jakhmola, 1993; Wazire and Patel, 2016). Sesame cultivation
catalaunalis, Macrophomina phaseolina is also severely affected by Macrophomina stem and root rot
and Phyllody. Annals of Arid Zone (MSRR) and phyllody. MSRR is a serious fungal disease caused
62(3): 253-260 by Macrophomina phaseolina, which results in stem and root rot,
https://doi.org/10.59512/aaz.2023.62.3.8 ultimately leading to plant death (Abawi and Corrales, 1990).
https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/AAZ/ Phyllody, on the other hand, is a phytoplasmal disease, which
article/view/135694 results in the abnormal development of floral organs, leading
to flower deformation and sterility. These major diseases of
https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/AAZ sesame are reported to cause a considerable yield loss in the
254
world. Vyas (1981) reported M. phaseolina as
a very destructive pathogen in all the sesame
growing areas which causes 5-100% yield loss
while Maiti et al. (1988), Usha Rani et al. (2009)
and Chattopadhyay et al. (2002) estimated yield
loss of 42-57%. In India, the incidence of sesame
phyllody disease reaches from 10 to 100% in
some croplands (Nagaraju et al., 2005). Akhtar
et al. (2013) and Salehi et al. (2017) reported that
sesame phyllody has been a destructive disease
and may cause 80% seed yield loss.
Chemical pesticides play a major role for the
management of insect pests and diseases but
their widespread and indiscriminate use has
resulted in a number of issues, including the
killing of the beneficial insects, environmental
pollution, human & animal health problems
and development of resistance in pests (Pedigo
and Rice, 2006; Stevens et al., 2012; Hirooka and
Ishii, 2013; Nderitu et al., 2020). To meet these
challenges, it is necessary to move towards more
sustainable and modern agricultural practices.
Moreover, these detrimental non-target effects
have motivated researchers around the world
to develop novel and environment-friendly,
alternative insect pest and disease management
strategies. Host plant resistance can form the
backbone of such pest and disease management
strategies in different agro-ecosystems (Sharma,
2007; Horgan et al., 2020; El-Dessoukiet et al.,
2022; Jeger et al., 2021). It is the consequences
of heritable plant characteristics that make
a plant more tolerant than the one lacking
these qualities. The present study was
therefore planned to identify the tolerant or
less susceptible genotypes against major insect
pests and diseases in sesame.
Materials and Methods
A field experiment was conducted to
evaluate 103 genotypes of sesame which
were obtained from Project Coordinating
Unit, AICRP on sesame, Jabalpur along with
a susceptible check (TC 25) and a resistant
Table 1. Resistant or Susceptibility rating scale on the basis of overall damage at different stages of plant growth
S. No. Per cent plant and Category
flower infestation
1 < 10 Resistant
2 10-20 Moderately resistant
3 21-30 Moderately susceptible
4 31-50 Susceptible
5 >50 Highly susceptible
PANDEY et al.
check (SI 250) to know their relative resistance/
susceptibility against major insect pests and
diseases. The experiment was carried out at
Agricultural Research Station, Mandor during
kharif 2021. Each genotype was sown in 5 m
row length with spacing of 30 cm between
rows and 10 cm between plants in augmented
block design with three replications. Different
genotypes were sown in the first fortnight of
July with recommended agronomic practices.
Five plants of each genotype were selected
randomly and tagged and observations were
recorded at vegetative, flowering and capsule
stages by counting the number of damaged and
total number of plants, flowers and capsules
per plants.
Number of infested
Per cent leaf/
leaf/flower/capsule
flower/capsule = ×100
Total number of leaf/
damage
flower/capsule
The plants were observed for Macrophomina
stem & root rot and phyllody symptoms.
The incidence of Macrophomina stem & root
rot and phyllody was recorded by counting
the infected plants in 5 m row and based on
infected and total number of plants, per cent
disease incidence (PDI) was calculated using
the formula:
Percent Disease Number of plants infected
= ×100
Incidence Total number of plants
Range of damage per cent of each reaction
was recorded according to AICRP on Sesame
and Niger (Anonymous, 2014) presented in
Table 1.
Results and Discussion
Results showed that in some cases plants
were more predisposed and in others flower
or capsule were more prone to damage but
none of the genotype was immune to the
attack of A. catalaunalis during the growth
cycle. The plant infestation varied from zero
S. No. Per cent capsule Category
damage
1 <5 Resistant
2 5-10 Moderately resistant
3 11-15 Moderately susceptible
4 16-25 Susceptible
5 >25 Highly susceptible
 FIELD RESISTANCE IN SESAME AGAINST DISEASES
(in 29 genotypes) to 50% (in five genotypes).
Flower damage by A. catalaunalis varied from
6.85% (NIC-8473) to 57.14% (NIC 8164) while
the capsule damaged varied from 4.23% (B-
240) to 88.89% (N-66-39) (Table 2). Among the
103 genotypes, 14 genotypes showed < 10%
infestation and categorized as “resistant”, 49
genotypes showed 10-20% infestation and
categorized as “moderately resistant”, 24
genotypes showed 21-30% infestation and
categorized as “moderately susceptible”, 15
genotypes showed 31-50% infestation and
categorized as “susceptible” and 1 genotype
showed >50% infestation and categorized as
“highly susceptible” at flowering stage while
at capsule stage, 2 genotypes showed <5%
infestation and categorized as “resistant”,
19 genotypes showed 5-10% infestation and
categorized as “moderately resistant”, 33
genotypes showed 11-15% infestation and
categorized as “moderately susceptible”, 35
genotypes showed 16-25% infestation and
categorized as “susceptible” and 14 genotypes
showed >25% infestation and categorized as
“highly susceptible” (Table 3). Three genotypes
viz., S-0292, IC-131943 and S-0301 were found
moderately resistant to A. catalaunalis at all the
three stages (vegetative, flower and capsule
stages). The per cent plant, flower and capsule
damage of S-0292 genotype were 20.00, 16.67
and 10.34, respectively while the plant, flower
and capsule damage of IC-131943 and S-0301
genotypes were 18.75, 12.50 and 6.25 and 16.67,
11.94 and 10.59, respectively (Table 2). Similar
studies were conducted by Baskaran et al.
(1994); Ahuja and Kalyan (2001); Manisegaran
et al. (2001) and Singh (2002) they reported
that the genotypes KMR-14 and TKG-22 were
moderately resistant to A. catalaunalis. Similarly,
Pandey et al., 2020 reported that Krishna, RT-46,
JTS-8, TKG-22, RT-103, Usha, Hima, RT-54, MT-
75, N-32, TKG-21, HTC-1B and OC-201 were
moderately resistant against A. catalaunalis. The
tolerant or resistant genotypes to Antigastra
can be used in transferring the resistance in
to the commercially acceptable varieties. Even
partially resistant cultivars may also provide
adequate control even with minimum usage
of insecticides. It will also help to prolong
the commercial life of existing insecticides by
discouraging the development of insecticides
resistance strains of the insect pest.
255
The evaluation of sesame genotypes for
resistance against major diseases such as
Macrophomina stem and root rot and phyllody is
important for identifying promising genotypes
for further cultivation (Foolad et al., 2000). In
this study, it was found that the incidence of
Macrophomina stem and root rot ranged from
zero to 37.50% and phyllody from zero to
4.68% varying from genotype to genotype.
The genotype EC-303304 had the maximum
root rot disease incidence, while the genotype
NIC-17452 had the highest phyllody incidence.
It is important to note that some genotypes
did not exhibit any incidence of either disease,
but still had poor growth or less capsule
development, leading to low yields. This
highlights the need for evaluating multiple
traits in addition to disease resistance when
selecting genotypes for cultivation. However,
there were some genotypes that performed
well in terms of seed yield and low disease
incidence percent. Among the 103 genotypes
evaluated, 11 genotypes (S-0644, KMR-53, IS-
1672, NIC-16256, IS-245, TC-30, IC-131943, EC-
334974, NIC-7935, GRT-8245, and NIC-8439-B)
showed excellent performance with less disease
incidence. Ezhilarasi and Meena (2019) while
evaluating 24 breeding lines for Macrophomonia
root rot resistance found that only two breeding
lines, VS 16 004 and VS 16 008, recorded less
disease incidence. Similarly, Choudhary et al.
(2014) screened 27 entries against stem and
root rot and identified only three entries, viz.,
IC-205477, IC-205506 and Krishna, as resistant.
Magar et al. (2022) conducted an experiment to
evaluate 32 varieties of sesame for resistance to
phyllody disease under natural field conditions
and found that TBS-05, TBS-09, TBS-02, Shweta,
KMR-69, TKG-22, and Pragati varieties were
resistant. Manjeet et al. (2020) evaluated 24
sesame genotypes against phyllody and root rot
disease and reported that only four genotypes,
namely JLS 110-12, HT 9913, T 78, and KMR 60,
possessed multiple disease resistance with zero
to 8.80% disease incidence. Mahadevaprasad
et al. (2017) evaluated 43 sesame lines against
phyllody disease under field conditions and
found that three genotypes, viz., KAU-05-2-
12, PC-14-2, and Kanakapura local, showed a
resistant reaction. Palanna et al. (2015) reported
that GT-1 and DS-9 were resistant to phyllody.
Dandnaik et al. (2002); Singh et al. (2007); and
Tan (2010) also reported about the resistance
sources against phyllody of sesame. Based
256 PANDEY et al.

Table 2. Evaluation of sesame genotypes for field resistance against major insect pest, Antigastra catalaunalis and
diseases of sesame
S. Name of entry Antigastra infestation Percent disease incidence
No. Per cent plant Per cent flower Per cent capsule Macrophomina stem Phyllody
infestation damage damage & root rot
1 S-0644 32.00 19.23 8.60 0.00 1.33
2 75-120 33.33 27.66 14.77 0.00 0.00
3 KMR-53 33.33 21.74 12.33 0.00 0.00
4 IS-1672 21.43 16.28 11.25 0.00 0.00
5 SI-3274 33.33 13.56 12.94 0.00 1.00
6 EC-303304 0.00 11.76 4.35 37.50 0.00
7 IS-3051 0.00 15.69 6.02 25.16 0.00
8 IC-204200 0.00 18.97 5.80 25.25 0.00
9 S-0314 33.33 23.73 17.86 2.56 0.00
10 NIC-16256 28.57 30.77 21.79 0.00 0.00
11 IS-722-I 30.00 17.86 20.55 0.00 2.25
12 IS-265-B 26.67 33.33 12.50 2.50 1.33
13 NIC-17452 21.43 20.83 21.69 17.54 4.68
14 NAL/78/3041431/2 25.00 32.20 17.98 5.25 0.00
15 S-0292 20.00 16.67 10.34 5.16 0.00
16 NIC-8463 0.00 10.71 10.26 2.50 0.00
17 IS-245 28.57 26.15 21.18 0.00 0.00
18 KMR-49 18.75 18.37 12.35 5.16 0.00
19 EC-52-1-84 26.67 31.37 18.67 2.57 0.00
20 TC-30 0.00 35.29 15.63 0.00 0.00
21 SI-1004-B 0.00 33.33 11.11 0.00 0.00
22 S-0271 0.00 50.00 5.88 0.00 0.00
23 NIC-8473 0.00 6.85 9.76 0.00 0.00
24 EC-334974 0.00 14.12 26.92 0.00 0.00
25 IC-131943 18.75 12.50 6.25 0.00 0.00
26 S-0351 36.67 34.78 17.95 0.00 0.00
27 S-0301 16.67 11.94 10.59 0.00 0.00
28 KIS-306 0.00 14.89 11.29 0.00 0.00
29 EC-334976 25.00 16.67 23.19 0.00 0.00
30 NIC-16248 23.08 17.20 12.33 0.00 0.00
31 ES-47 0.00 9.38 7.59 25.11 0.00
32 NIC-8164 33.33 57.14 28.89 0.00 0.00
33 NIC-17930 50.00 27.27 12.90 0.00 1.11
34 K-2 23.53 32.14 20.51 5.00 0.00
35 IS-112-B 0.00 25.00 10.29 0.00 0.00
36 KIS-380 17.65 14.52 12.31 0.00 0.00
37 IS-646-2-84 16.67 18.18 13.04 0.00 0.00
38 IS-127 20.00 13.46 12.68 0.00 0.00
39 B-240 0.00 10.00 4.23 5.23 0.00
40 IS-191 20.00 12.90 14.29 15.15 0.00
41 IS-101-3-A 0.00 21.88 13.11 0.00 0.00
42 N-62-32 0.00 13.64 8.62 0.00 0.00
43 SI-958-23 21.43 20.00 13.33 0.00 0.00
44 GRT-8623 0.00 12.28 10.14 0.00 0.00
45 N-66-39 0.00 32.00 88.89 0.00 0.00
46 JT-66-177 21.43 17.19 21.88 0.00 0.00
47 EC-303433-I 25.00 39.39 25.86 0.00 0.00
48 NSS 25.00 15.15 12.68 0.00 3.32
49 NIC-16219-A 21.43 17.19 18.75 2.55 2.46
50 03-Oct 23.08 17.46 9.88 0.00 0.00
51 RJS-82-A 0.00 10.61 11.25 5.00 0.00
52 NIC-8439-A 35.00 18.31 17.28 2.55 1.24
 FIELD RESISTANCE IN SESAME AGAINST DISEASES 257

Table 2. Continued ...

S. Name of entry Antigastra infestation Percent disease incidence
No. Per cent plant Per cent flower Per cent capsule Macrophomina stem Phyllody
infestation damage damage & root rot
53 S-0445 33.33 19.44 21.25 0.00 0.00
54 S-0392 27.27 14.29 14.81 0.00 0.00
55 SI-2630-A 30.00 18.42 23.61 2.55 0.00
56 S-0636 0.00 10.00 11.67 33.34 0.00
57 NIC-6292 0.00 14.29 21.05 2.53 0.00
58 EC-834983-A 25.00 18.52 14.71 0.00 0.00
59 IS-723-B 30.77 20.51 24.19 2.53 0.00
60 KMR-32-A 0.00 7.69 11.11 0.00 2.93
61 NIC-16439 30.00 14.93 12.66 0.00 0.00
62 IS-16-A 50.00 27.91 25.81 0.00 0.00
63 S-0268 30.00 16.67 17.46 0.00 0.00
64 IC-423 0.00 13.46 9.33 0.00 0.00
65 NIC-8558-B 40.00 24.07 19.48 0.00 4.52
66 S-0232 27.27 26.92 25.45 0.00 0.00
67 IS-56-A 25.00 17.46 16.22 0.00 0.00
68 NIC-16278-A 25.00 30.43 15.63 0.00 0.00
69 KMR-7 50.00 33.33 42.86 0.00 0.00
70 ES-36-B 0.00 33.33 62.50 0.00 0.00
71 IS-129 25.00 18.00 9.86 0.00 0.00
72 KMR-30-B 36.36 27.78 32.69 0.00 0.00
73 SI-1865-1-A 0.00 14.52 13.04 2.53 0.00
74 RJS-350 25.00 25.00 20.63 0.00 0.00
75 KMR-80 30.00 22.22 12.31 0.00 0.00
76 RJS-8301 33.33 26.92 19.64 5.10 0.00
77 NIC-161-90-B 23.08 18.52 11.11 2.53 0.00
78 RJS-8315 27.27 16.39 18.03 0.00 0.00
79 NIC-11044 33.33 25.00 24.56 14.30 0.00
80 NIC-17362 21.43 15.15 17.24 7.56 0.00
81 NIC-16289 30.77 25.93 33.33 6.00 0.00
82 NIC-16241 30.00 14.00 12.24 0.00 0.00
83 RJS-34 36.36 24.59 27.45 0.00 0.00
84 NIC-8439-B 33.33 33.96 24.59 0.00 0.00
85 SI-8008-A 27.27 22.45 17.54 0.00 0.00
86 SI-1847 0.00 7.69 17.31 0.00 0.00
87 EC-334983-B 0.00 0.00 12.73 0.00 0.00
88 IS-723-A 0.00 0.00 19.23 0.00 0.00
89 KMR-32-B 0.00 0.00 15.38 0.00 0.00
90 KMR-4-259-A 0.00 0.00 21.15 0.00 0.00
91 KMS-423 0.00 0.00 11.86 0.00 0.00
92 NIC-8538-A 33.33 23.53 22.22 0.00 0.00
93 IS-56-B 0.00 8.22 8.00 0.00 1.88
94 KMR-30-A 0.00 12.50 12.50 0.00 1.72
95 IS-731 20.00 22.39 11.43 0.00 0.00
96 IS-3197-A 30.77 20.29 26.03 0.00 0.00
97 S-0242 50.00 22.73 27.78 0.00 0.00
98 BM-59 50.00 40.00 40.91 0.00 0.00
99 GRT-8245 33.33 15.52 16.07 0.00 0.00
100 NIC-7935 0.00 0.00 41.67 0.00 0.00
101 SI-7871-B 21.43 17.54 15.09 0.00 0.00
102 IS-294 0.00 10.87 8.70 33.32 0.00
103 VCR/81/No/80/NS/972 21.43 8.06 14.00 0.00 0.00
104 TC-25 (Susceptible Check) 37.50 41.94 32.93 - -
105 SI-250 (Resistant Check) 5.00 6.32 8.40 - -
Table3. Categorization of genotypes on the basis of their reaction against Antigastra catalaunalis in sesame
S. Reaction Based on per cent plant damage
No. No. of Genotypes
geno-
types
1 Resistant 34 EC-303304, IS-3051, IC-204200, NIC-
8463,TC-30, SI-1004-B, S-0271, NIC-8473, EC-
334974, KIS-306,ES-47, IS-112-B, B-240, IS-101-
3-A, N-62-32, GRT-8623, N-66-39, RJS-82-A,
S-0636, NIC-6292, KMR-32-A, IC-423, ES-36-B,
SI-1865—A, SI-1847, EC-334983-B, IS-723-A,
KMR-32-B, KMR-4-259-A, KMS-423, IS-56-B,
KMR-30-A, NIC-7935, IS-294
2 Moderately 9 S-0292, KMR-49, IC-131943, S-0301, KIS-380,
resistant IS-646-2-84, IS-127, IS-191, IS-731
3 Moderately 35 IS-1672, NIC-16256, IS-722-1, IS-265-B, NIC-
susceptible 17452, NAL/78/3041431/2, IS-245, EC-52-
1-84, EC-334976, NIC-16248, K-2, SI-958-23,
JT-66-177, EC-303433-I, NSS, NIC-16219-A,
03-Oct, S-02392, SI-2630-A, EC-834983-A, NIC-
16439, S-0268, S-0232, IS-56-A, NIC-16278-A,
IS-129, RJS-350, KMR-80, NIC-161-90-B, RJS-
8315, NIC-17362, NIC-16241,SI-8008-A, SI-
7871-B, VCR/81/No/80/NS/972
4 Susceptible 24 S-0644, 75-120, KMR-53, SI-3274, S-0314,
S-0351, NIC-8164, NIC-8439-A, S-0445, IS-
723-B, IS-16-A, NIC-8558-B, KMR-7, KMR-
30-B, RJS-8301, NIC-11044, NIC-16289, RJS-34,
NIC-8439-B, NIC-8538-A, IS-3197-A, S-0242,
BM-59, GRT-8245,
5 Highly 1 NIC-17930
susceptible
Based on per cent flower damage
No. of Genotypes
geno-
types
14 NIC-8473, ES-47, B-240, S-0636, KMR-
32-A, EC-334983-B, SI-1847, IS-723-A,
KMR-32-B, KMR-4-259-A, KMS-423,
IS-56-B, NIC-7935,VCR/81/No/80/
NS/972
49 S-0644, IS-1672, SI-3274,EC-303304, IS-
3051, IC-204200, IS-722-1, S-0292, NIC-
8463, KMR-49, EC-334974, IC-131943,
S-0301, KIS-306, EC-334976, NIC-16248,
KIS-380, IS-646-2-84,IS-127, IS-191,
N-62-32, SI-958-23, GRT-8623,JT-66-177,
NSS, NIC-16219-A, 03-Oct, RJS-82-
A,NIC-8439-A, S-0445, S-0392, SI-
2630-A, NIC-6292, EC-834983-A, NIC-
16439, S-0268,IC-423, IS-56-A, IS-129,
SI-1865-1-A, NIC-161-90-B, RJS-8315,
NIC-17362, NIC-16241, KMR-30-A, IS-
3197-A, GRT-8245, SI-9871-B, IS-294
24 75-120, KMR-53, S-0314, NIC-17452,
IS-245, NIC-17930, IS-112-B, IS-101-3-A,
IS-723-B, IS-16-A, NIC-8558-B, S-0232,
NIC-16278-A, KMR-30-B, RJS-350,
KMR-80,RJS-8301 NIC-11044, NIC-
16289, RJS-34, SI-8008-A, NIC-8538-A,
IS-731, S-0242,
15 NIC-16256, IS-265-
B,NAL/78/3041431/2, EC-52-1-84,
TC-30, SI-1004-B, S-0271, S-0351, K-2,
N-66-39, EC-303433-I, KMR-7, ES-36-B,
NIC-8439-B, BM-59
1 NIC-8164
258
Based on per cent capsule damage
No. of Genotypes
geno-
types
2 EC-303304, B-240
19 S-0644, IS-3051, IC-204200, S-0292, NIC-8463,
S-0271, NIC-8473, IC-131943, S-0301, ES-47, IS-
112-B, N-62-32, GRT-8623, 03-Oct, KMR-32-A,
IC-423, IS-129, IS-56-B, IS-294
PANDEY et al.
33 75-120, KMR-53, IS-1672, SI-3274, IS-265-B, KMR-
49, SI-1004-B, KIS-306, NIC-16248, NIC-17930,
KIS-380, IS-646-2-84, IS-127, IS-191, IS-101-3-A,
SI-958-23, NSS, RJS-82-A, S-0392, S-0636, EC-
834983-A, NIC-16439, SI-1865-1-A, KMR-80,
NIC-161-90-B, NIC-16241, EC-334983-B, KMR-
32-B, KMS-423, KMR-30-A, IS-731, SI-7871-B,
VCR/81/No/80/NS/972
35 S-0314, NIC-16256, IS-722-I, NIC-17452,
NAL/78/3041431/2, IS-245, EC-52-1-84, TC-30,
S-0351, EC-334976, K-2, JT-66-177, NIC-16219-A,
NIC-8439-A, S-0445, SI-2630-A, NIC-6292, IS-
723-B, S-0268, NIC-8558-B, S-0232, IS-56-A, NIC-
16278-A, RJS-350, RJS-8301, RJS-8315, NIC-11044,
NIC-17362, NIC-8439-B, SI-8008-A, SI-1847,IS-
723-A, KMR-4-259-A, NIC-8538-A, GRT-8245,
14 EC-334976, NIC-8164, N-66-39, EC-303433-I, IS-
16-A, KMR-7, ES-36-B, KMR-30-B, NIC-16289,
RJS-34, IS-3197-A, S-0242, BM-59, NIC-7935
 FIELD RESISTANCE IN SESAME AGAINST DISEASES
on the research findings, resistant genotypes
are recommended for further evaluation and
potential cultivation. However, it is essential
to evaluate multiple traits, including disease
resistance and yield, before selecting the best
genotypes for cultivation.
Conclusion
Among the tested genotypes, none of the
genotype was found to be free from infestation
of leaf webber and capsule borer, A. catalaunalis
but three genotypes viz., S-0292, IC-131943 and
S-0301 were found moderately resistant. Eleven
genotypes viz., S-0644, KMR-53, IS-1672, NIC-
16256, IS-245, TC-30, IC-131943, EC-334974,
NIC-7935, GRT-8245, and NIC-8439-B showed
excellent performance with lower incidence of
Macrophomina stem & root rot and phyllody
diseases.
Acknowledgements
The authors are highly thankful to The
Project Coordinator, AICRP on Sesame, Jabalpur
for providing seed materials for conducting the
experiments and also grateful to Zonal Director
Research, Agricultural Research Station,
Mandor for providing necessary facilities.
References
Abawi, G.S. and Corrales, M.A.P. 1990. Root Rots
of Beans in Latin America and Africa: Diagnosis,
Research Methodologies and Management Strategies.
CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
Ahuja, D.B. and Bakhetia, D.R.C. 1995. Bioecology
and management of insect pest of sesame- a
review. Journal of Insect Science 8(1): 1-19.
Ahuja, D.B. and Kalyan, R.K. 2001. Field screening
of genotypes of sesame against leaf webber/
capsule borer, Antigastrac atalaunalis Dup.,
gallfly, Asphondylia sesami Felt and mite,
Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks). Pest
Management and Economic Zoology 9(1): 409-412.
Akhtar, K.P., Sarwar, G., Sarwar, N. and Elahi, M.T.
2013. Field evaluation of sesame germplasm
against sesame phyllody disease. Pakistan Journal
of Botany 45: 1085-1090.
Anonymous 2014. Screening of insect pest resistant.
In Proceedings of Sesame and Niger 2013-14, pp.
31-32. All India Coordinated Research Project on
Sesame and Niger, JNKVV Campus, Jabalpur,
Madhya Pradesh, India.
Anonymous 2021. Annual Report 2020-21. ICAR-All
India Coordinated Research Project (Sesame
and Niger),, JNKVV Campus, Jabalpur Madhya
Pradesh, India
259
Baskaran, M.R.K., Ganesh, S.K. and Thangavelu, S.
1994.Germplasm screening against sesame leaf
roller and pod borer. Madras Agricultural Journal
81(11): 618-621.
Chattopadhyay, C. and Kalpana Sastry, R. 2002.
Combining viable disease control tools for
management of sesame stem root rot caused
by Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. Indian
Journal of Plant Protection 30: 132-138.
Choudhary, C.S., Anjana, A. and Prasad, S.M. 2014.
Management of stem and root rot of sesame.
International Journal of Agricultural Sciences 10(2):
755-760.
Dandnaik, B.P., Shinde, S.V., More, S.N. and
Jangwad, N. P. 2002. Reaction of sesame
lines against phyllody. Journal of Maharashtra
Agricultural Universities 27(2): 233.
Egonyu, J.P., Kyamanywa, S., Anyanga, W. and
Ssekabembe, C.K. 2005. Review of pests and
diseases of sesame in Uganda. In: Proceedings
African Crop Science Conference, pp. 1411-1416.
Uganda, East Africa
El-Dessouki, W.A., Mansour, M.R.K. and Eryan,
N.L. 2022. Effects of certain weather, biotic
factors and chemical components on the
population of aphids in Egyptian wheat fields.
Egyptian Academy Journal of Biological Sciences A,
Entomology 15(1): 1-13.
Ezhilarasi, T. and Meena, B. 2019. Screening
for resistance to Macrophomina root rot in
advanced breeding lines of sesame. Journal of
Plant Development Sciences 11(5): 303-305.
Foolad, M.R., Ntahimpera, N., Christ, B.J. and Lin,
G.Y. 2000. Comparison of field, greenhouse,
and detached-leaflet evaluations of tomato
germplasm for early blight resistance. Plant
Disease 84: 967-972.
Guzman, G.M., Cellini, F., Fotopoulos, V., Balestrini,
R. and Arbona, V. 2022. New approaches to
improve crop tolerance to biotic and abiotic
stresses. Physiologia Plantarum 174(1): 13547. Not
referred in Text
Hirooka, T. and Ishii, H. 2013. Chemical control of
plant diseases. Journal of General Plant Pathology
79: 390-401.
Horgan, F.G., Garcia, C.P.F., Haverkort, F., de
Jong, P.W. and Ferrater, J.B. 2020. Changes in
insecticide resistance and host range performance
of plant hoppers artificially selected to feed on
resistant rice. Crop Protection 127: 104963.
Jeger, M., Beresford, R., Bock, C., Brown, N., Fox,
A., Newton, A., Vicent, A., Xu, X. and Yuen, J.
2021. Global challenges facing plant pathology:
multidisciplinary approaches to meet the food
security and environmental challenges in the
mid-twenty-first century. CABI Agriculture and
Bioscience 2(1): 1-18.
260 PANDEY et al.
Magar, S.J., Markad, H.N. and Somwanshi, S.D. 2022.
Evaluation of different genotypes, varieties, and
hybrids against Sesamum Phyllody disease. The
Pharma Innovation Journal 11(3): 2187-2189
Mahadevaprasad, T.N., Karuna, K., Jayashree, M.K.
and Reddy, K.S. 2017. Field evaluation of sesame
lines against phyllody. Electronic Journal of Plant
Breeding 8(3): 945-949.
Maiti, S., Hegde, M.R. and Chattopadhyay, S.B. 1988.
Handbook of Annual Oilseed Crops. Oxford and
IBH Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 325 p.
Manisegaran, S., Manimegalai, N., Puspha, J. and
Mohammed, S. 2001. Non-preference mechanism
of resistance in sesame to shoot webber and
capsule borer Antigastra catalaunalis (Dup.).
Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 9(1): 123-124.
Manjeet, R.A., Kumar, A., Sheoran, R.K. and Verma,
P.K. 2020. Screening of sesame (Sesamum indicum
L.) genotypes for major diseases. Electronic
Journal of Plant Breeding 11(04): 1227-1232.
Nagaraju and Muniyappa, V. 2005. Viral and
phytoplasma diseases of sesame. In Diseases
of Oilseed Crops, pp. 304-318. Indus Publishing
Company, New Delhi, India
Nderitu, P.W., Jonsson, M., Arunga, E., Otieno, M.,
Muturi, J.J. and Wafula, G.O. 2020. Combining
host plant resistance, selective insecticides,
and biological control agents for integrated
management of Tuta Absoluta. Advances in
Agriculture 2020: 1-8.
Palanna, K.B., Shivanna, B., Boraiah, B., Pappachan
A. and Nagaraj, M.S. 2015. Evaluation and
screening of sesamum varieties against sesamum
phyllody and its incidence and severity in
central dry zone of Karnataka. Green Farming
6(5): 1130-1133.
Pandey, S., Jaglan, R. S. and Singh, R. 2020.
Evaluation of sesamum genotypes against leaf
webber and capsule borer, Antigastra catalaunalis
(Duponchel). Indian Journal of Entomology 82(4):
649-652.
Pedigo, L.P. and Rice, M.E. 2006. Entomology and
Pest Management, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
Rai, B.K. 1976. Pests of Oilseed Crops in India and their
Control. Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
New Delhi, India, 121 p.
Salehi, M., Esmailzadeh-Hosseini, S.A., Salehi, E. and
Bertaccini, A. 2017. Genetic diversity and vector
transmission of phytoplasmas associated with
sesame phyllody in Iran. Folia Microbiologica 62:
99-109.
Saxena, A.K. and Jakhmola, S.S. 1993. Effect of spray
time and number on sesame leaf webber and
capsule borer, Antigastra catalaunalis (Duponchel).
Agriculture Science Digest 13:131-133.
Sharma, H.C. 2007. Host Plant Resistance to Insects:
Modern Approaches and Limitations. Industrial
Journal of Plant Protection 35(2): 179-184.
Singh, P.K., Akhram, M., Vajpeyi, M., Srivastava,
R.L., Kumar, K. and Naresh, R. 2007. Screening
and development of resistant sesame varieties
against phytoplasma. Bulletin of Insectology 60(2):
303-304.
Singh, V. 2002. Reaction of sesame genotypes to leaf
webber and capsule borer Antigastra catalaunalis
(Duponchel) (Lepidoptera: Pyraustidae). Sesame
and Safflower Newsletter17:52-53.
Stevens, J., Dunse, K., Fox, J., Evans, S. and Anderso,
M. 2012. Biotechnological Approaches for
the Control of Insect Pests in Crop Plants. In
Pesticides - Advances in Chemical and Botanical
Pesticides (Ed. R.P. Soundararajan), pp. 269-308,
Intech Open https://www.intechopen.com/
chapters/37968 assessed on 12-09-2023.
Stevens, J., Dunse, K., Fox, J., Evans, S. and Anderson,
M. 2012. Biotechnological approaches for the
control of insect pests in crop plants. In: Pesticides
- Advances in Chemical and Botanical Pesticides, pp.
1-41. https://doi.org/10.5772/46233
Tan, A.S. 2010. Screening phyllody infected sesame
varieties for seed transmission of disease under
natural conditions in Turkey. Annual Journal of
AARI 20(1): 38-50.
Usha Rani, S., Udhayakumar, R. and John
Christopher, D. 2009. Efficacy of bioagents and
organic amendments against Macrophomina
phaseolina (Tassi) causing root rot of sesame.
Journal of Oilseeds Research 26(2): 173-174.
Vyas, S.C. 1981. Diseases in sesamum in India and
their control. Pesticides 15:10.
Wazire, N.S. and Patel, J.I. 2016. Estimation of losses
by leaf webber and capsule borer Antigastra
catalaunalis (Duponchel) in sesamum. Indian
Journal of Entomology 78(2): 184-185.
Printed in September 2023